Saturday, April 19, 2014

Saturday Waffling (April 19th, 2014)

Hello all. Life is good. Wrapped up the writing of TARDIS Eruditorum entries for Series Five yesterday, and got back on finishing off the next chapter of Last War in Albion today. That's going well, and I'm quite happy with the chapter.

So, let's see. I don't think we've done a "what are you reading" thread lately if at all, have we?

What are you reading? Should the rest of us be reading it too? For me the answer is the Frank Miller Daredevil run, but that's for an already discussed reason. It's... historically very important and easy to see why people made a big deal about, but probably not essential reading for one's happiness in life. It's sort of beyond the scope of reviews: if it sounds like the sort of thing that will interest you, it probably will, and otherwise can be skipped.

Friday, April 18, 2014

We Confuse Rebellion With A Hairstyle (The Last War in Albion Part 40: D.R. & Quinch, Alan Davis)

This is the sixth and final part of Chapter Six of The Last War in Albion, covering Alan Moore's work on Skizz and D.R. & Quinch  for 2000 AD. An ebook omnibus of all six parts, sans images, is available in ebook form from AmazonAmazon UK, and Smashwords  for $2.99. If you enjoy the project, please consider buying a copy of the omnibus to help ensure its continuation. 

The stories discussed in this chapter are available in the collections Skizz and The Complete D.R. & Quinch.

Previously in The Last War in Albion: Alan Moore's D.R. & Quinch featured juvenile delinquency and massive amounts of destruction played initially for countercultural and satirical laughs, but eventually played for little more than its own sake. Early installments rail against corrupt authority and the cruelties of war, but the final storyline is a largely toothless (albeit terribly entertaining) satire of Hollywood.

"We confuse rebellion with a hairstyle. Nightmare of the teenage jobscape, suddenly made stupid, weak and clumsy there among the calloused adults." - Alan Moore, The Birth Caul

The specific style in question dates to MAD #4, from 1953, and from the acclaimed story “Superduperman,” although following the success of that story it became the house style for MAD. Still, “Superduperman” is a known influence for Moore, who has credited it as an influence for both Marvelman and Watchmen, and as such is as good a vehicle to describe the style as any. In many ways “Superduperman” reflects the style of short story that Moore characterized as a “list story” when writing Future Shocks for 2000 AD. Its structure is in effect a frame for going through a bunch of parodied aspects of Superman and, later, Captain Marvel.

Figure 298: Wally Wood's extremely
detailed art packs in a number of
entertaining sight gags. (Click to
enlarge.)
And so in rapid succession the strip introduces Clark Bent, Lois Pain, and Billy Spafon, who with the magic word SHAZOOM! (Strength, Health, Aptitude, Zeal, Ox, Power of, Ox, Power of Another, and Money) becomes Captain Marbles and proceeds to have an extended fight with Superduperman. The story drips with irony - Superduperman’s chest insignia constantly changes from panel to panel, often serving as various corporate logos or notes that the space is for sale, while Captain Marbles has openly given up being a superhero in favor of making money. All of this is a barely veiled parody of the then-current legal case between National Comics (the then-owners of Superman) and Fawcett Publications, who owned the at the time more popular Captain Marvel. 

Although there is a plot - Superduperman meets and fights Captain Marbles and finally defeats him by tricking him into punching himself in the head, only to find out that Lois Pain still considers him (quite correctly, given his habit of using his X-Ray vision to spy on the women’s room) to be a creep - the plot is, like that of “Sunburn” or “They Sweep the Spaceways,” mainly an excuse to pack in jokes, including elaborate sight gags within Wally Woods’ hyper-detailed art and various suitably awful puns in the vein of Clark Bent. The story is just a frame for this parodic work. And this describes the basic approach - MAD #10’s “G.I. Shmoe,” #7’s “Shermlock Shomes,” or #13’s “Prince Violent” are all basically the same structure: stories that exist to pack in a large number of humorous distortions of recognizable characters and figures.

This also perfectly accurately describes “D.R. & Quinch go to Hollywood,” which manages to shoehorn in parodies not just of Marlon Brando but of Alfred Hitchcock and of some well-known British film critics. This is the main point of the strip - D.R. & Quinch are in effect just an occasion for Moore to write an extended list story about Hollywood. But for all that the strip is quite funny, it’s also clear that any meaningful satirical bite the story might have has been well and truly drained out of it by this point. Hollywood is, in practice, just about the safest target imaginable, and Moore is ultimately adding a not particularly notable entry to a massively large genre of Hollywood parodies. In May of 1984, when the story wrapped, Moore had never even been to the US, and was still years out from the wealth of frustrating experiences with Hollywood that he would go on to have. “D.R. & Quinch go to Hollywood” is, in other words, not the work of someone who has had even the slightest first hand experience with Hollywood; it’s just a bunch of cliches and media images of Hollywood reflected back through the eyes of an admittedly highly competent humorist. However entertaining the results, it’s miles from the furious satire of “D.R. & Quinch Have Fun on Earth” and “D.R. & Quinch Go Straight,” which visibly extended from his own experience with being branded a sociopathic juvenile delinquent and his continual anger at “the man.”

Figure 299: The final double-page splash of Moore's
final D.R. & Quinch story. (From "D.R. & Quinch Get Back
to Nature," written by Alan Moore, art by Alan Davis, in
2000 AD. Sci-Fi Special '85, 1985.)
But in truth, Moore’s own investment in that humor was rapidly waning. Over time Moore came to conclude that, as he put in a later interview, D.R. & Quinch was “something that I don’t think has any redeeming social value. It makes violence funny, which I don’t think is right. I have to question the point where I’m actually talking about thermonuclear weapons as a source of humor.” This decision fits with Moore’s larger career arc at this time; by the time of D.R. & Quinch as an ongoing series for 2000 AD Moore was deep into work on Swamp Thing, a comic he filled with ecological sentiment. The final D.R. & Quinch story, “D.R. & Quinch Get Back to Nature,” came out in the 2000 AD Sci-Fi Special ’85, the same year as his famed “Nukeface Papers” story in Swamp Thing, in which artist Steve Bisette wove chilling present-day newspaper headlines about the horrific effects of nuclear power into the art. The idea that Moore would, as he put it, decide that D.R. & Quinch “is humorous in a kind of an Animal House way, socially irresponsible kind of way, but I’m not really that comfortable about making jokes about nuclear weapons” is wholly believable.

Figure 300: The red flames of Orc. (From
America a Prophecy, Copy A, Object 17)
But there’s a broader turn in place here. By the time that Moore put D.R. & Quinch in place he was deep into V for Vendetta, a comic that existed, as Moore put it, to interrogate the British “tradition of making heroes out of criminals,” and ultimately to conclude that “killing people is always wrong” and to envision a different sort of anarchic hero who rejected violence. His rejection of D.R. & Quinch is clearly a parallel to that process, itself a parallel to Blake’s eventual rejection of Orc, the embodiment of revolution itself, as a viable opposition to Urizen’s cold and tyrannical reason. Blake described Orc’s efforts at revolution thusly: “Fury! rage! madness! in a wind swept through America / And the red flames of Orc that folded roaring fierce around / The angry shores, and the fierce rushing of th'inhabitants together,” leading to the point where “Then had America been lost, o'erwhelm'd by the Atlantic, / And Earth had lost another portion of the infinite.” 

Figure 301: D.R. & Quinch returned in
1987 in a brief series of one-page
strips featuring them as agony aunts.
(Written by Jamie Delano, art by Alan
Davis, from 2000 AD #529, 1987)
Beyond that, though, as Moore notes, “I probably got as many laughs out of it as I could.” By the final D.R. & Quinch strip Moore was reduced to recreating the sense of ridiculous violence of the first few strips by putting D.R. and Quinch in charge of a summer camp and having a strip narrated by one of the traumatized campers who writes home assuring his parents that “I sure am having a swell time at this summer camp you sent me to, and I am not being maltreated in any way.” As with the first few D.R. & Quinch stories, the humor lies in the fact that the reader is clever enough to grasp the irony in lines like this and the camper’s assertion that “our supervisors are responsible adults who certainly never get drunk and shoot out all the windows in the dormitory block.” But while this approach succeeds in restoring the central joke of D.R. & Quinch that had been largely absent since the conclusion of “D.R. & Quinch Go Straight,” the satirical bite remains gone. No longer are D.R. & Quinch railing ridiculously at the horrors of conventional authority: they’re just torturing kids by throwing them into patches of “mind-wrenchingly painful poison-stingwort.” Whatever philosophical objections Moore might have had to the nature of D.R. & Quinch’s brand of satire seem beside the point when that satire has been so completely bled out of the series through excessive repetition. 2000 AD’s 1987 attempt to revive the pair as a series of one page gags under the banner D.R. & Quinch’s Agony Page, written by Jamie Delano, proved similarly unpromising despite what is, on the surface at least, a nearly solid gold premise. 

Figure 302: The final panel of Harry Twenty on the High Rock was
unsubtly lifted from The Prisoner. (Written by Gerry Finley-Davis, art
by Alan Davis, from 2000 AD #307, 1983)
While Moore’s writing may have flagged over the course of D.R. & Quinch, however, the work of his collaborator, Alan Davis, never did. Davis had been active and acclaimed for several years by the point of D.R. & Quinch, having done work with Alan Moore for both Marvel UK and Warrior, as well as a run on the Gerry Finley-Day 2000 AD series Harry Twenty on the High Rock. But these jobs had largely established Davis as, in his own words, “the gritty realistic artist.” Certainly Harry Twenty on the High Rock supports this - it’s a quite grim prison escape story with the sci-fi twist that the prison is “a hundred miles above the earth” and “crammed with 10,000 of the hardest, most vicious criminals from the world below.” The protagonist, Harry Twenty, formerly Harry Thompson, was sent to prison for smuggling food to starving islanders, and spends the bulk of the strip trying to escape. It is, as one would expect, violent and full of unsavory figures. The strip culminates with the prison being blown out of Earth’s orbit in the course of a prison riot, and ends with Harry effectively in charge of the prison and declaring, in an act of straightforward plagiarism of The Prisoner, that “I ain’t a number any longer. I’m a free man!” The ending leaves plenty of room for a continuation, but the strip was an acknowledged mess - Finley-Day’s scripts were described charitably was “in need of battening down and knocking into shape,” and less charitably as borderline incoherent: “the sentences don’t make sense,” as Alan Grant, who had the unenviable job of rewriting Finley-Day’s already paid for scripts. It wrapped in Prog 307, and was at that point replaced with Skizz

Figure 303: Grimly Feendish, the visual
inspiration for D.R. & Quinch (From
Smash! #89, 1967)
Davis describes the experience as stressful. “When Richard [Burton] got me along to the 2000 AD offices,” he explains, “Steve [MacManus] wasn’t really too impressed with what I was doing. He didn’t really like the idea of having an American-style artist for 2000 AD. I was almost on probation, in a way.” The spectacle of an increasingly acclaimed and popular artist who was doing fantastic work for two of IPC’s competitors being given a script that had been festering in the IPC inventory since 1982 because of its obvious problems closely mirrors the strange failure of IPC to give Moore ongoing work until he was on the brink of getting poached by American companies as well.

Eventually IPC deigned to give the pair, who were well into their Eagle Award winning run on Marvelman over at Warrior a Time Twisters to do, which resulted in “D.R. & Quinch Have Fun on Earth.” Davis, for his part, was eager to shake off the reputation for grit he had acquired and, as he put it, “prove I could draw other styles of art,” and based his approach on Leo Baxendale’s Grimly Feendish strip from Odham’s Smash! and Wham!. Feendish, “The Rottenest Crook in the World,” as the strip described him, originated as a villain in Wham!’s Eagle-Eye Junior Spy before getting his own strip in Smash!, and was a would-be supervillain whose overly elaborate schemes inevitably ended tragically for him. Depicted as a short, fat, grotesque with fangs, his influence on D.R. & Quinch is evident in Davis’s design for Quinch.

Figure 304: Chrysoprasia turns to Crazy Chryssie, and Alan Davis
manages no end of humor in the visual aspects of the transition.
(From "D.R. & Quinch Go Girl Crazy," written by Alan Moore, art
by Alan Davis, in 2000 AD #353, 1984)
Davis’s non-comedic work had always benefited in part from his knack for drawing facial expressions, and he parlayed this skill into D.R. & Quinch, crafting the characters so that their faces were at once alien and tremendously expressive. Quinch generally remained impassive, as befitted his taciturn nature (virtually all of his lines across the series are simply “S’right.”), but D.R.’s supremely expressive face sells countless sight gags. Similarly, the transition of Chrysoprasia to Crazy Chryssie in “D.R. & Quinch go Girl Crazy” is accomplished largely through one single facial expression, emphasized by one of the few times Quinch’s stoic grin breaks down. 

Figure 305: D.R.'s silhouette is immediately distinctive.
(From 2000 AD #355, 1984)
The transition is also helped, however, by Davis’s excellent sense of silhouette. All of Davis’s primary characters in D.R. & Quinch have instantly recognizable outlines, and the Chrsoprasia/Chryssie transition is handled by substantially altering Chryssie’s so that her previously downturned ears stick straight up (mirroring D.R.’s) and her neatly tied bun at the front of her head explodes into a front-hanging ponytail. D.R. and Quinch themselves, meanwhile, are constructed as a classic double act, with Quinch being the large and round character while D.R. is small and skinny. D.R.’s expressive face is framed by an instantly recognizable pair of sharply pointed ears and a comically large pompadour in the Elvis Presley/James Dean mould, tying him implicitly to a long history of rebellious youth. The art is crisp, clean, and entertainingly grotesque, giving the absurd excesses of Moore’s script a note-perfect execution. 

Figure 306: Alan Davis's artistic debut
on Captain Britain.
But this is hardly surprising for what was, by the time of D.R. & Quinch, a well-honed creative partnership. Moore and Davis had been working together since June of 1982 when Moore, having made his bones on the Star Wars and Doctor Who titles published by Marvel UK, was given the reins of Marvel UK’s Captain Britain, at the time an ongoing series in the monthly anthology Marvel Superheroes. Davis had been drawing Captain Britain for the comic since September of 1981, where he made his mainstream debut illustrating a script by Dave Thorpe that served as the character’s first appearance in that title. But the history of the character stretches back considerably further. [continued]

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Transparency Report for 2013

Right, this is one of those things I've been promising to do before another Kickstarter, and I have the numbers handy, so let's go ahead and have a look at how the whole writing career went over the last year.

I'm doing this mainly because I do have to shake the cup occasionally and ask for money, and encourage people to buy books to support the project. And I feel like if I'm going to plead with you for money, you have a right to know what my financial situation is.

So, first of all, I am not the primary earner in my household. That would be my wife, who is an oncology nurse at a fairly large hospital. She makes about what you'd expect for that, which is to say, a fraction of what she deserves. We live in Danbury, Connecticut, which is around the 66th percentile in terms of cost of living in the US - a two-bedroom apartment in decent but not great repair runs us $1250 a month, to give you an idea, and that's pretty much standard market price.

I made $12,409 in royalties in 2013. $3169 of those came from the bundling of books in the Storybundle Doctor Who deal, while the other $9240 came from general sales, for an average of $770 a month. In practice this helpfully supplements my wife's income in a given month and means that we enjoy the considerable luxury of never having to get too stressed about where rent is coming from in a given month.

There was also the matter of the Kickstarter. I made some errors in calculating shipping costs that resulted in much, much more of the Kickstarter being used to fulfill rewards than I had expected. Between paying for editing and design services on four books in 2013 and rewards shipping, all but about $5000 of the Kickstarter was spoken for. (Design is about $800 a book. Final costs on shipping aren't quite nailed down because I still have some replacements to ship due to my screwing up and not using sturdy enough packaging, but they were around $6-7k.)

That $5000, along with the Storybundle windfall, essentially went to two things. The first was our honeymoon, which we took in Chicago after eloping. We drove out, stayed in a Pricelined hotel, and put all the money towards eating at nice restaurants. It was an absolutely amazing time, and we would both like to thank everyone for making it something we could do.

The second was my wife's birthday present for me, a very nice grill that lets me do all sorts of fun cooking things. I was going to include a picture of it, but I ended up writing this at about 3am, so really, not the best lighting for it. Still, I love it dearly, and have made some really lovely dinners on it. (Next up, a grill-roasted duck with potatoes, also grill-roasted.)

To sum up, then, between this job and my wife's work, we're able to maintain a pretty nice middle class existence for two. There's no shortage of stuff we could do if we had more money - any sort of expensive vacation in 2014 is currently not in the cards, for instance, and this week's budget was rather strained by the fact that we had to finally confront the annoyance of not owning a printer. Our savings aren't great, and we're not in any position to buy a house, have a kid, or afford to move somewhere less stupidly expensive than Danbury in the immediate future. But we're doing a lot better than most, and although the income from this job is a fraction of what my wife makes, it's still enough to be the difference between a constant struggle to make ends meet and being in a position where they reliably do, albeit without much left after.

All of which is to say, thank you for your support. Within the next week or so I'll be launching a Kickstarter that will fund the writing of Book Two of The Last War in Albion, the book version of Book One, and the occasionally mentioned Secret Project, which I will merely say is Doctor Who-related, book length, and will be serialized to all Kickstarter backers. (And that's really all you get unless you pledge.) That'll be a $2500 goal Kickstarter, with stretch goals being commitments to write an additional book of Last War in Albion for every $2500 over goal. My hope is that it will end somewhere in the $8k range, which will allow us to set up some substantive savings such that we can cope with unexpected emergencies and/or maybe actually take a vacation again someday.

I'm happy to answer any questions about this in comments. Thanks again for everything. It's been a heck of a year.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Intelligent Alien Beings (The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood)

Karen Gillan is a particular specialist at the "pretend you're
in the middle of an earthquake" aspect of acting in Doctor
Who.
It’s May 22nd, 2010. Roll Deep remain at number one with “Good Times,” which is unseated after a week by Bob and Bruno Mars with “Nothin’ On You.” with Jason Derulo, Usher, Fyfe Dangerfield, Leeds United Team & Supporters, and the cast of Glee also charting. In news, the so-called Borisbus design is debuted. Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, and David Miliband all announce that they’ll stand for leadership of the Labour Party. And not much more happens.

While on television, The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood, a nice, meaty, two-parter. Which is to say, a relic. The two-parter, as a story structure, has seemingly been deprecated, becoming the pure historical of the new series. Like the pure historical, it lingers into the second major creative era of the show before being quietly and unremarkably done away with - two-parters are a mainstay of Series Six Part One, and have suddenly vanished by the back half.

Moffat has spoken about two-parters skeptically as a structure, arguing that the way in which they can be made to work is to have the second episode start in a markedly different place from the first - a logic that, when taken to its extreme, eventually gets you things like The Snowmen and The Bells of Saint John or The Name of the Doctor and The Day of the Doctor in which the broadest form of the two-parter is preserved, but the individual stories are wholly distinct. And sure enough, the five two-parters of the Moffat era almost all do this, with  the setting change in Flesh and Stone, the unexpected time jump in Day of the Moon, and the introduction of the Ganger Doctor in The Rebel Flesh. There’s a notable exception here, of course, and it’s this story.

It tries, certainly - the switch to a historical narration from the perspective of 3020 is an attempt to make Cold Blood a materially different sort of story than The Hungry Earth. But it’s a feeble attempt designed to try to cover up the truth, which is that The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood is a case of the new series doing a two-parter that is utterly faithful to why there are two-parters in the first place, namely a desire on the part of Russell T Davies to preserve the cliffhanger structure of the classic series. 

In this regard the most interesting question about these episodes, in many ways, is what Tat Wood is going to think of them. As one of the few people capable of suggesting that the new series ought be more like the classic series without sounding like an utter fool, these episodes ought be of particular interest to him. Not least because they harken back consciously to the Pertwee era in more than just the choice of antagonists. The opening sequence is drenched in Pertwee iconography, from a giant drill (Inferno) to the bucolic Welsh setting (The Green Death). There’s talk of jungle planets, and Nasreen is fairly straightforwardly modeled off of Liz Shaw. And, of course, there’s the antagonists. 

But that’s just iconography. What really jumps out here is the structure - the fact that the way that The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood was structured as a two-parter was by increasing the number of major secondary characters (four Silurians and five humans) and by taking large amounts of the storytelling very slowly. The four minute cold open of The Hungry Earth is not outlandishly long, certainly, but it’s worth thinking about how this would have been handled in other stories. It’s difficult to imagine this story being handled this way even as early as Season Six, and unfathomable that it would be structured this way in Season Seven. These days we’d collapse exposition, introducing the human characters alongside the explanation of the drill, using the need to explain the plot to Amy as an opportunity to handle all of this. Instead we get it done in multiple scenes. Likewise, we have an entire thirty second scene devoted to the Doctor getting through the main gate with the sonic screwdriver. Again, what’s striking is not how torturously long this brief scene is, but rather that it exists at all, it being exactly the sort of thing the Moffat era eventually starts trimming with abandon. 

Even where things change from how they’re done in the 1970s, it comes down to finding like-for-like replacements in a new iconography. In 1970 the human weaknesses that derail peace were the usual concerns of the 1970s: military thinking, economic greed, lust for power, all that jazz. This time it comes from a mother being overprotective of her family, which, although Moffat backs away from motherhood as a theme very soon after this, is at this point still a major and recurring theme of the new series. And, tellingly, the 1970s motivations and iconographies are all still there - they’ve just been ported over to the Silurian side, who do in fact have overly militaristic warriors and blinkered scientists of the sort who were all the rage in early 70s Doctor Who.

The result of all of this is a story that feels like the era it’s emulating more, perhaps, than any other new series episode. We’ve had occasion to look at episodes and say “this feels rather 80s” or “this is a callback to the 60s,” but we’ve never had something quite this imitative. At times it seems like the script is more interested in engaging with the Pertwee era than it is in the audience. Certainly Nasreen’s presence makes a lot more sense when read as an occasion to give Liz Shaw a departure story. And the reveal that the Silurian faces that were initially teased are just masks covering expressive faces that will actually (for the first time) allow the Silurians to actually function as individual characters instead of as people in monster suits, while clever, is also blatantly a case of saying “look, we can do things from the 1970s better now.” This is true as a statement of fact, but it’s telling that the entire reveal of the Silurians is structured around this reveal.

Admittedly, the reveal coincides with the revelation that the Silurians are individual characters. But while this was hugely notable in The Silurians, it’s somewhat less radical in 2010, when we’ve already had “the monster isn’t actually a monster” in The Beast Below and aliens with individual personalities are a standard component of the show’s bag of tricks. The moment where “the monster” becomes “Alaya” doesn’t serve as something that fundamentally reconceptualizes the entire story, not least because it’s not until Cold Blood that we get even the first hint that there are good Silurians. But more broadly, it’s because the central brilliance of The Silurians is now standard operating procedure - we haven’t had a single season of the new series that hasn’t featured monsters with individual personalities, and the “aliens are not equivalent to villains” idea has similarly become standard, if perhaps still less common than would be ideal in 2010.

Which gets at the biggest problem with redoing the Pertwee era, or at least The Silurians in 2010. What is often forgotten about The Silurians is that it’s the second Doctor Who story after a complete reconceptualization of the series’ premise. The TARDIS neither appears nor is mentioned at all - the Doctor is just a weird guy working for UNIT, and even that’s only been set up in the final episode of the preceding story. The Silurians trades heavily on the fact that the nature of the show was truly up in the air such that the idea that it might become about sharing a planet with lizard people is within the realm of possibility. The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood doesn’t have that luxury, even with its near-future setting: the show is far too cautious in 2010 to do something like declare peace between Silurians and humans to be an imminent moment of future history.

There’s a bitter irony to all of this. In 1970 it was conceivable that the Silurians could actually serve as something other than antagonists, except for the fact that the show wasn’t capable of doing anything with them besides have them be men in generic monster suits. In 2010, on the other hand, the Silurians aren’t really capable of serving as anything other than glorified monsters, even though the show finally has the technical capabilities to do what Malcolm Hulke was trying to do in 1970. Instead the show ends up taking the predictable route, carefully making sure the breakdown of the peace process is ultimately the Silurians’ fault, albeit after some considerable human provocation on the part of Ambrose, and putting all the toys back in the box. 

There are, of course, ways around this that we’ll see in later stories. For all that the resolution of The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood falters, it at least gave the series Silurian costumes and, perhaps more importantly, Neve McIntosh, who will work out much better later on in the form of Madame Vastra. Obviously we’ll talk about her more when the time comes, but it’s worth pointing out that she takes the idea of the Silurians to its logical endpoint instead of attempting a straightforward Malcolm Hulke imitation: she decouples the Silurians from the monster/people line and simply functions as a character. Yes, that means she also lacks the postcolonial aspects of the Silurians proper, but if The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood is how those are going to be played out, with the story ultimately siding against the Silurians while putting on a fairly banal show of pretending it cares about moral complexity, that’s probably an acceptable sacrifice.

But equally, an awful lot of what’s frustrating about this story really does come out of that /. As a single episode in which the pace is quickened and the pressure increased, this could have been at least an interesting experiment. But at the pace of two episodes and ninety minutes, with its over-inflated cast of characters it crawls, and it’s nearly impossible, at the end, to feel like this was worth doing. There may be enough good parts across the two episodes to justify doing them, but there’s not enough over ninety minutes to justify taking that long. And that, perhaps, is the true nail in the coffin of the two-parter. Because here we have a story that could have been a pretty good single episode turned into a tedious two-parter.

Curiously, though, all the extra space fails to find room for Rory, whose pseudo-death serves as the episode’s climax. That the death is temporary seems relatively clear from the episode itself, as it’s a terribly unsatisfying conclusion to that story, not least because of Amy’s forgetting Rory existed. Beyond that, given that this is Rory’s second death in two stories, the sense that there’s something wrong with the twist is so clear as to seem deliberate.

Nevertheless, it seems strange that Rory should be on the sidelines for so much of an episode where he provides the climax. His lack of any sort of hero moment leading up to his death certainly increases the sense of wrongness, but it becomes a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul - it may pay off in the eventual resolution of Rory’s plot for this season, but it only highlights the difficulties of this story, coming off as one more way in which the emphasis and focus was put in the wrong places. 

And yet for all of it, it’s hard to complain that the story exists. There are enough people who have always been inclined to insist that the new series should be more like the classic series in various ways that the temptation to try something like this had to be enormous. It was worth trying, to see if, against the odds, it could be made to work. It didn’t, which certainly isn’t proof that it couldn’t or can’t ever, but it at least serves as a needed warning sign to anyone who thinks that a medium can just be rolled back by forty years. As “great ideas to bring back” go, the Silurians looked like a good one, and again, this serves as a warning against the instinct that says that classic series concepts are inherently worth revisiting, and proves the end of the “bring back a classic series concept every year” logic. And the two-parter, by this point an instinctive and default aspect of the series’ production, stands revealed as something that can easily do more harm than good. 


The point of mistakes is to learn from them, and in every case the series did. Whatever might be said of the rest of the Moffat era, they never screw up quite like this again. This story feels, in many ways, like the moment where a lot of received dogma about how Doctor Who was supposed to work got cast aside and the Moffat era resolved to not play it safe like this again. As with many of the moments when a particular way of doing things starts to break down, it doesn’t cover itself in glory, but that’s not the point. This is, at least, an important story, if not actually a very good one.

Monday, April 14, 2014

There's No Point in Growing Up (Amy's Choice)

This happens more often than you'd think. Trust me, I know.
My wife's a hospice nurse.
It’s May 15th, 2010. Roll Deep are at number one with “Good Times,” a song that sounds from the title very much like it is about sober and responsible behavior. Plan B, Aggro Santos, and Professor Green also chart. I’m going to go ahead and admit I’ve not heard of any of these. News I remember - BP continues to do a very bad job of stopping the Deepwater Horizon spill. Gordon Brown announces that he will resign as head of the Labour Party, which precedes David Cameron forming a coalition government with Nick Clegg. The Queen approves of this, apparently. Oh, and Eyjafjallajökull’s ash cloud started wandering by again. 

While on television, the midpoint of the season, Amy’s Choice. Let’s start with the end, since its implications are easy to overlook. In amidst the revelation that the Dream Lord was just a twisted reflection of the Doctor (which is to say, literally what he appeared to be all episode, as opposed to merely figuratively), it is easy to overlook the larger point, which is that Amy’s choice was always a false one. The episode spends most of its runtime positioning Amy to make a choice as to which of the two worlds is real, with this choice symbolically standing in for her choice between Rory and the Doctor. The final revelation is that this choice was illusory. 

This is not a small thing. The conventional wisdom, after all, would hold that Amy and Rory getting married would bring about the exact result it seems to in this story: they’d settle down in Leadworth and stop having adventures. Because growing up is antithetical to adventures. That’s the entire point of the Amy/Amelia dichotomy and the whole “run off with the Doctor the night before her wedding” idea. Instead of your Mickey-esque terrestrial partner you fall in love with a madman with a magical box. Of course for Amy, for whom sexual confidence is one of the first traits given, this was always going to be somewhat less chaste than the Rose Tyler era. Especially once she’s met River, and thus been tacitly invited to view the Doctor as a sexual being. 

And this logic is hardly unique to Doctor Who. Just over two years prior to this story Marvel Comics went to great lengths to undo the marriage between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson in the Spider-Man comics, saying that “When people get married, they tend to settle down -- life slows down and you gain different responsibilities, grown-up responsibilities, boring responsibilities. You go out to dinner less, see fewer movies, your social life is curtailed and revolves, as it should, around your significant other. In short, life hands you a mini van. While marriage makes for an okay story, there is less drama in a (healthy) marriage than in a single relationship.” Just over two years after it, DC did a big reboot of its universe and, in the process, undid the Clark Kent/Lois Lane marriage before, eventually, clarifying that they were simply opposed to the idea of any superheroes being married, saying, “heroes shouldn’t have happy personal lives.” And these are just a handful of examples of the general maxim that putting characters in any sort of stable relationship is a bad thing for adventure stories.

All of which is to say that the iconography and message underlying Amy’s situation at this point in the series is screaming that this is a story about choosing between adulthood/marriage and childhood/adventures. So when it turns out that this is not even remotely what the story is about, it’s non-trivial, and a development with some real and significant points and consequences. For one thing, it forces a reevaluation of what it means that Amy is no longer a little girl. The Eleventh Hour calmly let us fall into the trap of thinking that the substantive part of Amy’s maturity was that she’s a sex worker (albeit a strangely antiquated kind - an attempt to search for “kissogram” in fact gets mostly Doctor Who results and results related to the musical act, the role being essentially obsolete now). And, of course, this is at the heart of why marriage and childhood adventure are instinctively opposed. A married person is sexually active, and thus no longer allowed to have childish adventures. 

But this is Steven Moffat, who wrote his first Doctor Who story as a rousing defense of sexual freedom. The idea that he was ever going to declare, to any extent, that being sexually active meant you were no longer worthy of adventures, thereby pulling some good old-fashioned Problem of Susan bullshit, was always ridiculous. That’s just not the way that Moffat works. And that is absolutely a part of what’s going on in Amy’s Choice - hence the decision to have the Leadworth dream include Amy’s pregnancy, a detail that is significant only because it makes the “choice” unambiguously between Amelia Pond, the girl who waited and who now has fairy tale adventures, and Amy Pond, the woman who has had sex. 

But, of course, the story is about more than just sexuality. It’s about the notion of adulthood, and while sexuality is certainly a part of adulthood that Moffat has a career-long interest in, it’s not the only part. The real issue here is that Amy is led to try to choose between a normal adult life and life on the TARDIS, with the clear implication and point being that a normal life where you get married and have kids is incompatible with going on adventures. By rejecting the existence of that choice, Moffat is flying in the face of an entire logic that growing up in a practical sense means that you can no longer tell a certain type of story. This returns to one of the basic moral themes of the Moffat era - that the solution to being trapped in a bad story is to tell a different one. Life with Rory and having grand adventures aren’t incompatible at all - the only thing necessary to have both is to decide to do just that - that is, to recognize that the choice offered is a false one.

This point works in two different ways. On one level, it’s a valuable and genuinely liberating bit of social commentary. The truism that people get more conservative as they get older is an oft-declared one, and more broadly, the idea that growing up is akin to growing banal and boring is a fundamental part of the culture. Indeed, this is part and parcel of reproductive futurism. The act of valuing “the children” in the abstract is fundamentally to argue that there is something vital that is lost between childhood and adulthood. Growing up and being a responsible citizen, in other words, means abandoning childhood and consciously becoming a less valuable person. The message that growing up in a practical sense of falling in love and getting married does not mean the abandonment of the fairy tale is a real and important one. Being adults doesn’t mean we don’t still get to be extraordinary. And thus, more importantly, being adults doesn’t serve as an excuse for not being.

But on a second level, it’s a comment and a condemnation of the entire set of tropes that creates the false choice in the first place. One might fairly ask why anyone would assume that marrying Rory precludes going on adventures. “He doesn’t want to” is certainly one answer, and one that Amy’s Choice gestures at, but equally, Rory was enthused just last story about traveling on the TARDIS. Indeed, this quickly becomes one of the most fundamental aspects of Rory as a character: while on the one hand it’s clear that traveling on the TARDIS is not, in fact, his first choice in life, he is not by and large hesitant about it. While he’d never have accepted the Doctor’s offer, the fact that his fiancee and then wife does and therefore has an entire fairy tale second life is not actually something that phases him. Indeed, he’s so accepting of it that he doesn’t even stumble over the TARDIS being bigger on the inside. His wife has a weird second life as an adventure heroine, and he embraces that because he loves her. 

And, of course, there are the ideological answers we’ve already dealt with - the Marvel and DC arguments that suggest that adulthood is necessarily boring or that the ethos of adventure is necessarily opposed to reality. But, of course, Moffat rejects those logics actively and consciously. Which leaves a bunch of arguments about how the stories just don’t work as well if the protagonists are in stable relationships - that the tropes and rules of the genre mean that Amy has to choose the TARDIS over Rory. That, in other words, the choice exists in the first place. But from a storytelling perspective, not falling into that choice really is as simple as just writing something else. The suggestion that marriage marks the end of being able to be the subject of interesting stories is morally abhorrent, yes. But the way to combat it is to simply tell a different sort of story. 

And notably, over the course of Amy’s Choice, that is exactly what happens. At the start the audience assumes that the TARDIS dream must be real, as it follows with seeming continuity from the end of The Vampires of Venice, whereas the Leadworth dream puts all of the characters in wildly different places in a way that would be narratively jarring. The revelation that the TARDIS scenes have been dreams as well is, in other words, significant because it amounts to a sudden refusal to tell the story that the episode has been pretending to tell. And it’s notable that the Doctor’s decision to blow up the TARDIS really is sudden, and comes after the story’s seeming resolution. The Doctor sees the apparent story through to its end and then concludes that this is not an adequate story and that he will need to tell another one.

Except, actually, he’s clearly worked it out long before that point in the narrative. We even see it happen on screen, when he tells the Dream Lord that he knows who he is. (Although this is telegraphed carefully in advance, most notably with the Dream Lord’s initial outfit.) And the resolution makes clear that knowing who the Dream Lord is in turn means he knows neither world can possibly be real. (If it even takes that long - he suggests he never bought the freezing sun bit, which would make all his claims that the TARDIS was the real world a lie.) Which means that everything the Doctor does surrounding Rory’s death and after is, in point of fact, him manipulating Amy. 

As with much of the Moffat era, it’s a case of hiding an answer in plain sight. Just last episode we saw the Doctor actively attempting to repair Amy and Rory’s relationship. Here, for much of the episode, he seems to be trying to tear it apart by forcing Amy to make the false choice. But at some point in the narrative it becomes clear that he is trying to do something different, as he knows that the choice is false. In fact, it seems as though he’s trying to push Amy to realize that the choice is false in the first place and that she can in fact have an adult relationship and a life of adventure at the same time. He allows Amy to realize that she would choose Rory over adventure if she had to choose, then removes the need to choose so that she can carry on having both. 

But the detail that the Dream Lord is in fact the Doctor pushes this observation even further. After all, the resolution of the episode has the odd effect of clarifying that absolutely nothing that happened in the episode was actually a danger. Since there was no “real world” in which to die, nobody was ever actually threatened. Which ever world they died first in, they’d wake up in the other one. Perhaps the goal was simply to ensnare them in a dream, but this seems an inferior interpretation that is clearly not what’s suggested by that final appearance of the Dream Lord’s reflection in the TARDIS console. No, if the Dream Lord is in fact the Doctor then the most sensible assumption is that the Dream Lord’s entire scheme in this episode was simply a sadistic and manipulative effort to fix Amy and Rory’s relationship. The rejection of the false choice was always the goal. And whenever the Doctor figures it out, all he’s doing is, in effect, simply figuring out his own subconscious plan. 


Given The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone and the turn towards making components of narrative itself into foes, this has significant implications. Haunting this entire story is the possibility that the Doctor, even if he does good things, does them by being a bit of a bastard. He admits this point himself at the end, saying, “I choose my friends with great care. Otherwise, I'm stuck with my own company, and you know how that works out.” This is an important point in its own right: for all that our ordinary lives are made better if we decide to be stories, so are our stories made better if allowed contact with ordinary lives. The presence of Amy and Rory in the Doctor’s narrative is what keeps the darkness implied by the Dream Lord at bay. What keeps a narrative threat at bay is people, and what makes people extraordinary is their stories. The only villain the story ever had was the idea that there might be some sort of choice between people and stories in the first place.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Saturday Waffling (April 12th, 2014)

Hello all. I've finally gotten around to those tax things, so the general "here's where things were in 2013 for Eruditorum Press" post should be up this week.

But for now, gossip! Discussion! Games!

The following eight posts will have other stories subbed in for them in the manner of Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead and Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone.

  • The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang
  • The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon
  • A Good Man Goes to War
  • Let's Kill Hitler
  • The Wedding of River Song
  • Angels in Manhattan
  • The Name of the Doctor
  • The Time of the Doctor
The stories available to go into those slots are the first six as well as Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead and Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone.

I have already selected which ones are going to go where, and have in my head some sort of spurious justification and plan for why I picked the order I did.

What order do you think I'm going to tackle them in? 

Give cool justifications for your picks and you might even change my order from the one I'm planning.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Closer to Glorifying Ecoterrorism than Neoliberalism: The Alex Reed Interview

Alex Reed of the band Seeming (and various other projects you may have heard about) was kind enough to provide an interview. You can read my earlier review of Seeming's deliciously good debut album Madness and Extinction here, stream the album here, and part with your hard-earned money for a copy here and at various other places where one would expect to buy music.

Hello Alex!

Hello Phil!

Much as it’s a largely debased and meaningless term, at first glance Madness and Extinction appears to be something of a concept album. So, why madness, why extinction, and why together?

Right.  I think both madness and extinction are viable alternatives to a world overrun by people convinced of their own rightness, and of their own right to control others, kill living creatures, and poison the sky.  As options go, I’d even say they’re preferable, really.

One aspect of the juxtaposition between madness and extinction is that the album has a sort of apocalyptic confessionalism: of the ten songs you wrote for it, by my count, nine of them feature the first person, including “Convincing,” in which you break an unspoken pop taboo and invoke yourself by name. What’s the appeal of such personal engagement with the apocalypse?

Music is a way of connecting with people, but I’m not going to pretend that what we have to say on this record is a message that lots of other people relate to or would want to.  Oftentimes the most rewarding art is the stuff that feels dangerous or risky, and so I made the choice with this album to give up on dance songs, on love songs, or on cheesy motivational ideas.  I like making dance music and love songs and I’ve written some very honest and hopeful stuff, but if that’s what you’re looking for as a listener, there’s a whole world of music out there tailor-made for you, and I can’t compete with it.  What I can do, though—and what I think we did with this record—is paint a picture that stares you back in the face with more than a hint of wildness and cold distance.  The risk on this record is its uninterest in relating.  It’s kind of a martian portrait.  And I think that’s what makes it exhilarating for me, and I think that people are starting to get it.

Speaking of “getting it,” I saw an exchange on Facebook where someone suggested there’s a symbolic “side flip” to the album between “Goodnight London” and “Come Back”—a feature that you more or less confirmed.  Can you talk a bit about the album’s sequencing and this two-sidedness? Is there a dramatic arc that you see to the album? Do some songs respond to one another directly?

Well, you talked about a “concept album,” and I can tell you that we never planned this to be a concept record as such.  But once we had the songs assembled, certain patterns fell into place in the sequencing.  “The Eyes of Extinction” always sounded like an opener, though finding a closer was harder.  I write a lot of songs that feel like conclusions or epilogues.  I think all pop stars should hire me to write track 12 on their albums.  An example of something that fell into place, though, was how “New Year” kind of felt like the outside view of “Everything Could Change,” and so putting then back-to-back made a kind of thematic sense.  On the flip side of that coin, “The Shadows” has a few lyrical overlaps with other songs and I wanted to cordon it off a little from the first few tracks to give those images some space.  Other decisions like the transition from “Everything Could Change” into “Goodnight London” or from “Beautiful for the Last Time” into “Convincing” had more to do with how the music sounded.  Those are certainly the record’s best two transitions, sonically speaking.  We actually had a spreadsheet where we rated every possible transition and tried to optimize it all, like a Traveling Salesman problem, but in the end, track sequencing is kind of a weird, magical thing with a mind of its own.

I want to talk more about putting the record together, but let me digress for a minute.  Given that the usual day-to-day fare of this site is British media, I have to ask about the British, and more broadly, European influence on the album. Obviously there’s both “Goodnight London” and “Come Back,” and the album keeps circling back to bits of European history and culture in things like “New Year” and “Beautiful for the Last Time.” Why Europe, particularly as an American yourself?

Hrm.  In the book I wrote last year, Assimilate, I’ve got this whole chapter where I come down pretty hard against the fetishization of certain imaginary Europes.  Long story short, its sketchy territory that can foster what are effectively fascist aesthetics.  So let me start by saying with absolute clarity: I do not idealize Europe’s past or present, its political realities or its mythical lineages.  I have zero patience with the entire concept of “purity,” no ideological attachment to the folklore or history of the north, the pre-industrial, or any construction of innocence that others might project onto past generations.  And I think those who do so ought to think hard about the sources and effects of their beliefs.  

Now, all that aside, I do have a personal, experiential knowledge and even love of certain places in the world, and many of them are in Europe.  I was an exchange student in the Netherlands when I was sixteen.  I spoke Dutch fluently and traveled to England, Belgium, Germany, and Czech.  It was a wonderful, formative time for me, and when I was researching Assimilate, I traveled back to those places.  “Beautiful for the Last Time” was inspired in part by the way that history is enacted and rewritten on the streets of those places.  And I have other songs that engage with these places because I’ve come to know them, because I have family connections to them, and because I’ve been exposed to their art and literature in a way that I feel able to comment on—there’s a lot of it that’s compelling, well-preserved, and that was taught (for better or for worse) in the places where I was sent to learn as a kid.  I’ve got two songs that aren’t on Madness & Extinction called “A Recovered Film” and “The Conqueror of England” that come from these perspectives.  But for that matter, I’m compelled by New York City, Chile, Tunisia, and Trinidad, and I think some of these will be apparent in Seeming’s future music.  And I don’t know if it counts for anything, but “Come Back” always seemed situated in Africa to me—that line about poachers.  But that’s probably because I was thinking about the Western Black Rhino when I wrote it.

But there still feels like the album has a note of idealism, and the last line in “Come Back,” for example, hints at that.  For all that Madness & Extinction is being called “the feel-bad album of 2014,” I can’t help but hear optimism, like in the cover of Alphaville’s “Welcome to the Sun” that closes out the vocal tracks.  What do you say to critics who might suggest that you are actually a perfectly well-adjusted and basically happy person?

Okay.  As I think of it now—and I didn’t write it this way, but let me to play analyst here for a second—it’s an awfully conditional kind of optimism, isn’t it?  I mean, between “Come Back,” “Goodnight London,” and “The Burial,” we’ve sorted of wiped the planet clean, and between “New Year,” “The Shadows,” and “Convincing,” I’ve well and truly lost my mind.  Any hope that “Welcome to the Sun” offers up more or less relies on a totally clean slate.  In this context, it comes closer to glorifying ecoterrorism than neoliberalism.  As for being well-adjusted and basically happy, I find a decent amount of happiness in the gaps and cracks.  Maybe they’re part of the bigger system, but if that’s the case, then at least they’re an inconvenient, grudging concession that’s been made for the likes of me.

You’ve started a new band for this album, and killed off your previous band, even though “New Year” had a previous version on the final release by your old outfit. How did the decision to move on change how you thought about and made the album?

It was mostly the other way around.  The music I was making, to say nothing of the people I was and wasn’t working with, didn’t have much to do with the material I used to put out.  Plus it’d been a while since the last record, and so even though I hadn’t thought much about ThouShaltNot running its course, Aaron and I found ourselves very much in the midst of something new.  If fans of the old band find this record and like it, more power to them, but like I said before, it’s definitely not intended for the same crowd.  And once we made the decision, it was really freeing.  I don’t miss the past at all.  “New Year” was recruited because it started making a lot of sense in the context of the other songs I’d written.  Reshaping it felt like we were doing a cover song.

Speaking of past work, you closed your book on industrial music, Assimilate, with a meditation on the future utility of noise as a transgressive force. Obviously, this is a very political record, but it’s easy to focus on the album’s politics in terms of lyrics alone. How did you conceptualize the politics of the album’s sound?

I wanted to locate the album sonically in a hidden, lost space.  We reverberated ourselves until we forgot who we were.  We took really catchy demos that had a rock edge and erased the guitars.  We slowed drums to half-time.  We cut lyrics that were too obvious.  We listened to late-60s psychedelic records and early-80s space rock.  The point here wasn’t pretense or esotericism, but it was a kind of discipline.  There’s a deep, terrifying emptiness bigger than you and me, and it’s not going to show its face in a chilled out synthpop number or a dubstep break.  We were training ourselves as musicians and producers like it was the first time, because that’s the only way we were going to find a new language.  

While we’re at it, you’ve also said that "when I’m putting Big Statements into music, I really like working in crystalline forms that invite repetition; I like recording.” This calls to mind William S. Burroughs—whom you also write a lot about in Assimilate—and specifically the idea of using repetition to imbue symbols with power and meaning, and of this as a magical process. To what extent is Madness and Extinction an act of magic? 

Inasmuch as it’s a bald-faced and dead-serious refusal of “reality.”  

That’s all you’re going to say?

Yup. 

Bringing up some of the themes of materiality that both of us have focused on, can you talk about the material composition of some of the songs—like what instruments you use, what you build the songs in, or any interesting sounds or samples you integrate?

Sure.  We record in Digital Performer, mostly, but that’s not where it starts.  Method-wise, I’m a pretty old-fashioned songwriter.  Usually I sit down with a guitar or at a piano.  Sometimes I’ll free-write beforehand if I’ve got a basic idea of what I want to say but need to spin it out a little.  Production decisions will sometimes occur to me while I’m writing, but a lot of time they’ll develop through playing the song, demoing it, experimenting a little.  With “The Eyes of Extinction,” for example, I wrote it initially in a straight 4/4, and it took a little bit of messing with it before the triplet rhythm emerged as a better choice.  To keep that from feeling too laid-back or bluesy though, that meant we had to be very careful about the percussion  and steer clear of anything resembling a backbeat.  It also meant that the main repeating instrument—that weird synthesizer that opens the whole album—needed to be really out of this world but without ever getting intrusive.  

Sound follows content—though a song’s content of course goes beyond its lyrics.  A song like “The Shadows” is, at least to me, more about its buildup than about any particular lyric, and so as the melody gets higher and as the chords veer further away from the home key, we turned up the reverb and added in more layers.  Finding the balance is important.  We did a lot of versions of “Everything Could Change,” for example, and some of them got too obvious at times in the way we were handling the whole “voices-in-your-head” business.  The final version, especially with the sudden piano and vocal distortion on verse two, and also with the choral ending, really felt like cutting the Gordian Knot.  We hadn’t ever figured out how to end the song before that.  It’s a thrill when you can just stumble on the solution to a problem.  

And along those lines, I should say that sometimes there are little serendipities and surprises.  “The Burial” really just went through one version.  We laid down some drums and a one-take playthrough of a simple analogue synth to help me guide the vocal takes, figuring we’d find something more nuanced for the final version.  But it was pretty clear once the vocals were in that the song didn’t need much more.  It was the last song recorded for the album, and it’s one of the few places where we said, “You know what?  Screw subtlety.  Let’s have giant gothic death bell ring every four measures.  And a ridiculous prog-rock synth solo.”  So the demo really was the final version there.  Or another one of my favorite unintended moments on the album is in the “getting over” section of “Welcome to the Sun.”  There’s a siren blaring in the background there, which was simply the sound of a police car outside my apartment on Bleecker St. where I recorded the vocal.  I think it lends a little whiff of fear to a song that (as you say) is more optimistic.  And it’ll always remind me of that time and that place.

Let’s stay for a minute on the way that the records’ songs developed over time, especially since you talked earlier about moving away from obvious or natural choices.  I know that the Seeming fan page on Facebook talked a lot about “Goodnight London,” which is probably the catchiest song on the album.  Was that something you wrote and recorded quickly or was it more laborious?  

I wrote it pretty quickly, but like I said at the start, that’s just the beginning of the whole process.  I think this one was mostly dreamt up on guitar initially.  I remember the first real challenge was figuring out the shift in key that happens on the line “the bombers have been sighted over Paris.”  But yeah, to answer your question, “Goodnight London” was laborious.  There was a version with the sound of marching footsteps and a military choir, and there was a big dumb synth-rock version that was stylistically outdated the moment we finished it.  We learned—probably not for the first time—that you shouldn’t force a song where it doesn’t want to go.  My wife Meredith loved the acoustic demo and hated all the big versions we did after that, and so when we were nearing the end of making the album, we set out to find a way for “Goodnight London” to keep its intimacy and emotion while still making good on its chorus, which is a giant, catchy rock gesture.  I think allowing the song to percolate for a while and being able to hear it in a few different ways helped us in the end, because once we knew what we wanted, the final album version came together very quickly.  

And you just did a video for it, yes?

Yes we did!  It’s up today at https://mishkanyc.com ! We worked with a very talented director in London named Michele Turriani.  We all agreed that going with a literal apocalypse scenario would be too direct, prone to bad clichés, and stupidly expensive.  So instead he made a very intimate little armageddon that matches the song rather nicely.  Aaron and I liked the treatment enough as a short film that we opted not to appear in the video at all.  We did, however, learn the interesting lesson that if you pay someone on another continent a fairly modest sum of money, they will blow up a BMW for you.

That’s an excellent thing to remember.  Okay, finally, because I have to ask, in what ways do They Might Be Giants influence this album?


Hah. One of the best things about They Might Be Giants is that they feel always free to invent, subvert, and tear down little worlds and realities left and right.  It’s part of why they seem “wacky” on one hand, but its also a really personally invigorating, magical thing.  I know you meant the question as a joke, and yes, let me take a second and plug the book that you and I wrote about Flood—it’s charming and worth a read.  But even though Madness & Extinction sounds nothing like They Might Be Giants, I keep coming back to music’s power to remake whole universes.  And I keep hoping somehow this can show us how to remake our own.